億萬富翁的貧富分化解決方案

Mike Novogratz and the other principals of hedge fund Fortress Investment Group (FIG) became instant billionaires when the company went public in 2007. Like many other uber-rich on Wall Street, their wealth, some of it created by loose monetary policy, has become the target of criticism from politicians and activists.

2007年堡壘投資集團（Fortress Investment Group）上市時，（公司投資總監）邁克•諾沃格拉茨和這家對衝基金的其他負責人立即成爲了億萬富翁。和華爾街衆多超級富豪一樣，他們的財富(部分源於寬鬆的貨幣政策)已成爲政客和活動人士的批評目標。

Recent statistics have renewed the debate about income inequality in the U.S. As referenced recently in the New York Times, 17.6 million households did not have enough to eat at some point in 2012. The Census Bureau recently reported that 15% of Americans, or 46.5 million people, live in poverty. But, according to the Economist, the share of national income flowing to the rich is at a record high of 19.3%, ahead of both 2007 and 1929.

最近的統計數據再次在美國引發了一場關於收入不平等的討論。正如最近《紐約時報》(New York Times)所指，2012年某個時候，有1,760萬戶家庭吃不飽。美國人口調查局(The Census Bureau)最近報告，有15%或4,650萬美國人生活貧困。而《經濟學家》(Economist)的報道顯示，富人在美國國民收入中的佔比已達到創紀錄的19.3%，超過了2007年和1929年。

Breaking from typical canned responses given by many on Wall Street, Novogratz offers a candid interview with Fortune about how policy can change to close the income gap, how CEOs need to have a "moral revolution" when thinking about their businesses, and how making oodles of money isn't always considered capitalism.

日前，諾沃格拉茨就相關問題接受《財富》雜誌(Fortune)採訪時沒有像很多華爾街人士那樣用套話迴應，而是非常坦誠地討論瞭如何通過調整政策來縮小收入差距，CEO們在思考自身企業時需要如何進行一場“道德革命”，以及賺大錢爲什麼不一定被看成資本主義。

Many people at the country's biggest employer -- Wal-Mart -- are on some sort of government support. In your opinion, how did this country get to where it is now?

沃爾瑪(Wal-Mart)是美國最大的僱主，但它的很多員工卻要依賴某種形式的政府補貼來維持生活。您認爲，美國怎麼到了今天這個地步？

It's the powerful combination of globalization and technology. In 1989, there were roughly 500 million people who constituted the developed world. Then the Berlin wall fell, and China opened up. Over the next 25 years, the developed world would go from 500 million to 3 billion.

這是全球化和科技快速發展的結果。1989年時發達世界只有約5億人口。然後，柏林牆倒了，中國開始對外開放。接下來的25年裏，發達世界人口從5億增長到了30億。

Labor supply increased, driving down wages, and the cost of intellectual capital went way up. So you look at a guy like Mark Zuckerberg. He developed a scalable idea that can go to the entire world. His single idea was very valuable.

勞動力供應增加拉低了工資，智力資本成本大幅上升。比如，馬克•扎克伯格這樣的人。他想出了一個可擴展的點子，推廣至整個世界。這個點子價值連城。

MORE: The rich got a lot richer since the financial crisis

延生閱讀：金融危機過後，美國有錢人更有錢了

In a lot of ways, this divergence of wealth was going to happen no matter who was at the watch. The Gini index [a measure of a country's inequality] has been on a one-way trend since the '80s through both Republican and Democratic regimes. Change is happening so fast, many people and maybe our political system just can't keep up. What the government has a responsibility to do -- and has the possibility of doing -- is looking at these mega-trends and looking at what this does to our communities. Is this the environment that we want to live in? Is this the country we want to live in?

從很多方面，這種財富的分化總是會發生，不管是哪個黨派當政。自從20世紀80年代以來，無論是共和黨、還是民主黨當政，美國的基尼指數（反映一個國家經濟不平等程度的指數）都處於單邊走勢。變化如此之快，很多人，也許連我們的政治體系都沒能跟上。政府有責任去做並有可能做的事是，關注這些大趨勢，關注它們對社會的影響。這是我們希望生活的環境嗎？這是我們希望生活的國家嗎？

Many would argue that Wal-Mart is the quintessential company that exploited global trends over the last 25 years. Do you blame the likes of Wal-Mart for what is happening? Do you think they are being greedy?

許多人會說，過去25年，沃爾瑪借國際趨勢大賺其錢，這方面無人能出其右。你會因爲正在發生的這一切指責沃爾瑪這類公司嗎？你認爲他們貪婪嗎？

Yes and yes. Wal-Mart (WMT) will make $15 billion this year. 49% is owned by the heirs and trusts of Sam Walton. They have 1.3 million workers who on average make around $12 an hour. So a full time employee, someone who works 40 hours a week doesn't make a living wage. And the U.S. taxpayer subsidizes that wage bill with an estimated $1.5 billion a year. The family has net worth of over $130 billion. Something doesn't feel right there, does it?

是的，是的。沃爾瑪今年會賺150億美元。這家公司49%的股權由山姆•沃爾頓的繼承人和信託持有。他們有130萬員工，人均時薪約12美元。因此，一個全職員工每週工作40個小時，賺的錢還不夠維持生計。而且，美國納稅人每年還要爲這些工資單補貼15億美元左右。沃爾頓家族的資產淨值已超過1,300億美元。這裏感覺有些不對勁，是不是？

If I looked at only those last two sentences, and replaced Wal-Mart with Fortress, I'd think that you were talking about yourself and your partners. You might not have $130 billion, but you're all billionaires. How is this different?

如果只聽最後兩句，把沃爾瑪換成堡壘投資集團，我會認爲你剛纔說的是你自己和你的合夥人們。你們可能沒有1,300億美元，但你們都是億萬富翁。有什麼不同嗎？

My issue isn't with people making money. I really think our first priority is to focus less on inequality and more on making sure the working class can support themselves. Wall Street employees, including ours, are in an industry with large margins and a very inflated pay scale. Our industry sits at the crossroads of globalization. We have a huge competitive advantage here in the U.S. which has a long history of being at the center of global finance. We have the training grounds of investing and risk taking. I am sure in time, that advantage will disappear but not in the near future. So we are in a position to pay all our employees extremely well.

我不是要跟有錢人找茬。我認爲，我們的第一要務不是盯着收入不平等問題，而是要確保更多的工薪族能自己養活自己。華爾街從業人員，包括我們自己在內，我們所處的行業利潤率很高，薪資也非常高。我們的行業正處於全球化的十字路口。在美國，我們有很大的競爭優勢，美國作爲全球金融中心的歷史悠久。我們有很多機會實戰學習投資和承擔風險。當然，假以時日這一優勢必將消失，但短期內不會。因此，我們能給所有員工非常好的薪酬。

So, in the case of Wal-Mart, government subsidies of the poor employees make the founders even richer. What do you think that the government should do?

但就沃爾瑪而言，政府爲沃爾瑪低收入員工提供的補貼讓創始人們變得更賦富裕了。你認爲政府該怎麼做？

The first step is for both sides to recognize what is happening and why. I was a big Obama supporter, yet the moment he gets on the campaign trail he blames the rich. He says billionaires and millionaires are rigging the system to take all the money. That immediately puts the people you need to help [the situation] on the defensive. I am not saying that people in power don't tweak things to their advantage' what I am saying is that is not the root cause of the inequity.

第一步是雙方要認清當前的狀況及原因所在。我曾經是奧巴馬的積極支持者。但他一展開競選就開始指責富人。他說，億萬富翁和百萬富翁們正在操縱整個體系，拿走所有的錢。這馬上就把原本可以幫助（改善現狀）的人們推到了對立面。我不是說“有權者不會爲私利而改變體系”，我要說的是它並不是不平等的根源。

But, specifically, what changes need to be made?

但具體來說，需要進行什麼改變？

We need a change of thinking in corporate America. Globalization and the fear of having your lunch eaten by the Chinese has made "shareholder value" the be-all and end of running a company. It is in the DNA of most of our CEOs. We need a shift where company leaders look at a balance between shareholders, customers, and employees. I guess that is a moral revolution.

我們需要改變美國企業界的想法。全球化以及擔心中國人搶飯碗的憂慮已經將“股東價值”變成了經營一家公司的全部和終極目標，深深地烙在了大多數CEO的DNA中。我們需要轉變，公司領導人需要在股東、客戶和員工間尋找平衡。我猜這是一場道德革命。

Short of that, the government can do things both to promote growth and to give the working and middle class a better shot. The right structural changes need to be made. First, we need to look at the things that are overhanging us. Making even a down payment on our long term budget problems is key. Fixing the social security system should be a top priority. And, of course, we should means test. So rich people shouldn't get social security, even though they paid into it. Once we show we can get something done, confidence will pick up.

如果企業不這麼做，政府可以努力促進增長，給工薪階層和中產階級更好的機會。需要進行正確的結構性調整。首先，我們需要關注迫在眉睫的事情。爲長期預算問題哪怕支付一筆定金，這非常重要。解決社保體系的問題應是當務之急。當然，我們應該按經濟狀況審查。因此，富人們不應獲得社會保障，即便他們爲此進行了支付。一旦我們證明我們能做成什麼，信心就會提升。

Second, the government needs to help get people employed. Here's a sad statistic: 9% of 25-55 year old males are on disability, up from 2%-3% from 20 years ago. Of course there are people on the list that are disabled. But many are just chronically unemployed. We have a whole lost generation. It's not unlike the hobos during the depression era. These men never got jobs; never got married; never have a reason to build a nest egg. That's the really scary and depressing thing. The best way to spur employment is to get the business community to believe you're on their side. It's why blaming is such bad policy. We need to unleash the pent up capital and creativity.

第二，政府需要幫助人們就業。這裏有一個讓人難過的統計數據：25-55歲的美國男性有9%的人在拿傷殘補貼，高於20年前的2%-3%。這些人當然是傷殘者。但很多人就是長期失業。我們有迷惘的一代，就像是歷史上大蕭條時期的無業遊民。這些人從沒有工作，從未結婚，從來沒有理由攢錢。這是一件非常可怕和令人沮喪的事情。促進就業的最佳方式是讓企業界相信你是支持他們的。因此，指責是一種非常糟糕的政策。我們需要釋放被壓抑的資本和創造力。

Third, take a look at monetary policy, QE3. This was meant to stimulate the economy by driving asset prices up. But it's the rich people who own the assets. Manhattan is a perfect example. Manhattan apartments, Hamptons houses, stock prices have all gone higher. We've all gotten richer! We need to recognize it. Maybe the Fed should expand its mandate to direct lending to small and medium-size companies as opposed to QE forever.

第三，讓我們來看看貨幣政策，QE3。這項政策的本意是通過推高資產價格來刺激經濟。但擁有資產的正是富人。曼哈頓是一個典型的例子。曼哈頓公寓、漢普頓的別墅以及股票價格都出現了上漲。我們都變得更有錢了！我們需要認識到這一點。或許，美聯儲(Fed)應當將政策關注點擴大至中小企業直接貸款，而不是永遠只有量化寬鬆。

Finally, the government needs to regulate minimum wage. An employee making minimum wage should not have to be subsidized by the government to live. A more comprehensive minimum wage system puts the responsibility back onto the businesses. It's also a more dignified way at redistribution. I am sure those Wal-Mart employees would rather have that extra $2,500 a year come from their company as opposed to a government handout.

最後，美國政府需要規範最低工資。拿最低工資的人們應該無需政府補貼。一個更詳盡的最低工資體系會把責任交回企業。這也是一種更有尊嚴的收入再分配方式。我相信那些沃爾瑪員工寧可每年從公司獲得額外的2,500美元，也不願接受政府的救濟。

What about taxes? Since the rich, like you, have gotten richer, don't you think redistribution of wealth through taxes could help? Or put another way, how is a lower tax rate on capital gains, which essentially helps the rich, not like a government subsidy similar to the one Wal-Mart receives?

稅收呢？既然像你這樣的有錢人變得更有錢了，難道你不認爲稅收能幫助實現財富再分配嗎？換言之，下調資本所得稅稅率讓有錢人獲益，與提供政府補貼讓沃爾瑪獲益，兩者有什麼不同？

Taxes play a role for sure. Most wealthy people I know wouldn't mind redistribution if they believed it wouldn't be wasted. Government hasn't shown that it hasn't been a good steward of GDP. In most cities our public school system is a debacle. This idea -- the disconnect between the need for government programs and the true implantation of them -- has caused a polarized system that throws a wet blanket over anything you want to get done. I wish I had an answer. Political gridlock is one of the reasons for the muted recovery. Once you have confidence, people start borrowing money and investing in the future.

稅收當然有一定作用。我認識的大多數有錢人都不介意財富再分配，前提是得讓他們相信，這些財富不會被浪費。政府的表現從來沒有證明它是GDP的好管家。在大多數城市，我們的公共教育體系就是個大敗筆。對政府項目的需求和項目實際執行之間脫節，這個體系兩級分化，想做什麼事都做不成。我希望我能有一個答案。政治僵局是復甦不溫不火的原因之一。一旦有了信心，未來人們就會開始借錢和投資。